The R22 corner: Owning, flying & training questions
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alderney or Lancashire UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here you go, a painted one, not anodised but it does the job. Not brilliant photos but I'm sure you get the idea. The final one shows just above 43 litres, thumb still on top of pipe of course. No problems trying to read it before the fuel evaporates here!
And NEVER rely on the gauge. AAIB has plenty of tales of those who did.
And NEVER rely on the gauge. AAIB has plenty of tales of those who did.
Last edited by Gaseous; 18th May 2008 at 15:21. Reason: to put a better picture on
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 47
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I started flying the R22 we used to have dipsticks for it, they looked factory but maybe the mist of time are working against me on that but they were T shaped and you dropped them through the filler neck and they would rest on the top of the T, now you would pull them out and hey presto you knew how much was left. We had one for the big tank and one for the Aux tank. Maybe banjo24 can back me up?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: airport
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read once (believe at the Robinson Helicopter Owners Group) that RHC doesn't supply them _any more_, it was mentioned that this was maybe for liability reasons. Not sure if this was indeed exactly true. Maybe they never did, and it's something dealers add?
At the safety course they explained how these gages work, and said that they are pretty accurate. They actually said that using dip sticks might make it unsafe, because you may damage the fuel senders with the sticks, introduce other stuff into your tanks, etc etc.
I flew lots of R22s with home made sticks, but also saw these T-shaped ones mentioned above. Maybe it's time for another after market product. On R44 however, I've never seen any of these dipsticks (didn't fly many different R44's though).
At the safety course they explained how these gages work, and said that they are pretty accurate. They actually said that using dip sticks might make it unsafe, because you may damage the fuel senders with the sticks, introduce other stuff into your tanks, etc etc.
I flew lots of R22s with home made sticks, but also saw these T-shaped ones mentioned above. Maybe it's time for another after market product. On R44 however, I've never seen any of these dipsticks (didn't fly many different R44's though).
Guest
Posts: n/a
Peoples opinions differ on the use of R22 dipsticks, some say "always dip before and after flying", others say "dont use dipsticks, they can damage the fuel sender".
A bit like pulling the tail down to check the TR flex coupling, some people do it, but others say 'dont do it - it strains the tail too much' (I think this is what Robinson tell you on the Safety Course)
Personally, I have always trusted the gauges, and have never had a problem after 1,000+ hours in R22s.
I have flown two-tank Schweizer 300 CBIs that have very unreliable gauges, even brand new machines.
A bit like pulling the tail down to check the TR flex coupling, some people do it, but others say 'dont do it - it strains the tail too much' (I think this is what Robinson tell you on the Safety Course)
Personally, I have always trusted the gauges, and have never had a problem after 1,000+ hours in R22s.
I have flown two-tank Schweizer 300 CBIs that have very unreliable gauges, even brand new machines.
I used to use dip sticks in my 22, don't have them now in my 44. An engineer friend hated them as said they could damage the sender and introduce crap into the fuel tank if they were not totally clean. I don't miss them now as I believe that: 1. The guages are fairley accurate. 2. If you fly the heli on a regular basis you know the way both guages go down together, so if one was faulty you would know. 3. You should know your fuel burn and keep accurate records of when refueled etc anyway. 4. Finally you have 3 things to go wrong before you fall out the sky: 2 guages and a low fuel sensor, all independent of each other.
I speak with regard to my own machine that only I fly, sure it might be different at a school, but point no 4 still holds!
I speak with regard to my own machine that only I fly, sure it might be different at a school, but point no 4 still holds!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: South of home
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CS-Hover,
You are close. Your explanation would be correct if the length and width of the tanks were the same and they only differed in depth. However, the aux tank is not only less deep than the main tank, but also shorter in the longitudinal axis, ie from the front of the tank to the back of the tank. I think it may also be narrower laterally, but I'm not certain.
So the excess volume is not just at the bottom of the main tank, it is also at the aft end of the tank. Here's a simple diagram with an aux tank (in black) overlaid inside a main tank (in blue), not to scale by any means:
If we were to remove the crossfeed tube so that the tanks' levels didn't automatically equalize, and then remove an equal amount of fuel from each tank, we would observe that the fuel level in the aux tank would decrease more than the fuel level in the main tank.
Hope this helps,
SS.
You are close. Your explanation would be correct if the length and width of the tanks were the same and they only differed in depth. However, the aux tank is not only less deep than the main tank, but also shorter in the longitudinal axis, ie from the front of the tank to the back of the tank. I think it may also be narrower laterally, but I'm not certain.
So the excess volume is not just at the bottom of the main tank, it is also at the aft end of the tank. Here's a simple diagram with an aux tank (in black) overlaid inside a main tank (in blue), not to scale by any means:
If we were to remove the crossfeed tube so that the tanks' levels didn't automatically equalize, and then remove an equal amount of fuel from each tank, we would observe that the fuel level in the aux tank would decrease more than the fuel level in the main tank.
Hope this helps,
SS.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: airport
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the R22 it is probably more important to add the correct amount of fuel due to weight limitations, but on the R44 (Raven 2) I usually top off and stick my finger into the tanks to see if I am fully loaded.
Runaway, is your finger properly calibrated and is it part of the annual to get it checked
. I actually do the same on my Raven II. as a matter of interest what do you reckon your fuel burn equates to?
. I actually do the same on my Raven II. as a matter of interest what do you reckon your fuel burn equates to?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
R-22 handbag on the passenger seat?
Im planning a little camping trip up North in an R-22.
The storage space in the r-22 is a little limited...
So if I load my tent etc into my (quite large) rucksack and strap it into the left hand seat making sure that all straps etc are restrained, and providing that my W&B is all within limits...
Would this be acceptable practice?
The storage space in the r-22 is a little limited...
So if I load my tent etc into my (quite large) rucksack and strap it into the left hand seat making sure that all straps etc are restrained, and providing that my W&B is all within limits...
Would this be acceptable practice?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Antigua, West Indies
Age: 55
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pre-CPL skills test W&B question...
Quick one for ya, chopper chaps and cyclic sisters...
Lateral W&B arm on the R22 for the BEM is always.... zero? Books and my hunch suggest it is; instructor thinks otherwise.
Thoughts please.
Cheers
Lateral W&B arm on the R22 for the BEM is always.... zero? Books and my hunch suggest it is; instructor thinks otherwise.
Thoughts please.
Cheers
check the PO handbook regarding Lateral C of G.
You don't usually need to determine the lat CG position unless unusual installation or loading of equip occurs.
I wouldn't have thought it was always zero though.
Does that help?
You don't usually need to determine the lat CG position unless unusual installation or loading of equip occurs.
I wouldn't have thought it was always zero though.
Does that help?
The fact that the RFM gives you a lateral vs longitudinal graph, probably gives away that you can be expected to calculate it.
However if there isn't a lateral arm or moment in the schedule completed by the people who weighed it what else can you be expected to do but assume it is zero when the aircraft is free of any load(s).
Make sure the RFM hasn't got the actual airframe schedule hidden in it somewhere, often in the weight and balance section.
I've got 40 R22s that I've flown in the database and only 1 has a lateral moment specified for it.
However if there isn't a lateral arm or moment in the schedule completed by the people who weighed it what else can you be expected to do but assume it is zero when the aircraft is free of any load(s).
Make sure the RFM hasn't got the actual airframe schedule hidden in it somewhere, often in the weight and balance section.
I've got 40 R22s that I've flown in the database and only 1 has a lateral moment specified for it.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Northampton
Age: 51
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look in your techlog at the details of its latest weighing and you will find the answer there. For the longitudinal it will specify the helicopters weight and it's datum ie the start point from which you start the calculation. However I have never seen a start point for the lateral arm ie. they seem to always presume that the aircraft starts at zero BUT as the start point is not specified the ACTUAL lateral cannot be calculated only one given a presumed starting point and what use is that?
Therefore my answer has always been that it cannot be calculated....and I've never got into trouble for that
Therefore my answer has always been that it cannot be calculated....and I've never got into trouble for that
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Choppertop and JoeM you are i believe wrong
just did a sample calculation with 200lb pilot 150lb copilot 10 galls in main tank and 5 galls in aux tank and got answer of +0.95 inches i.e. to the right.
so your instructor is right i think
1) so the initial lateral is 0 and the a/c forms no part of calc
2) 0 is halfway across a/c laterally
3) everything loaded to right is a +ve and to the left a -ve
4) the arms which are all between -11 to +11.2 are for a sample a/c check your weight and balance schedule to see if they are the same for your a/c
5)lateral is almost always going to be +ve
200* 10.7 = 2140
150* (9.3) = (1395)
60* (11.0) = (660)
30* 11.2 = 336
total moment/total weight = 421/440 = 0.9568
just did a sample calculation with 200lb pilot 150lb copilot 10 galls in main tank and 5 galls in aux tank and got answer of +0.95 inches i.e. to the right.
so your instructor is right i think
1) so the initial lateral is 0 and the a/c forms no part of calc
2) 0 is halfway across a/c laterally
3) everything loaded to right is a +ve and to the left a -ve
4) the arms which are all between -11 to +11.2 are for a sample a/c check your weight and balance schedule to see if they are the same for your a/c
5)lateral is almost always going to be +ve
200* 10.7 = 2140
150* (9.3) = (1395)
60* (11.0) = (660)
30* 11.2 = 336
total moment/total weight = 421/440 = 0.9568
Last edited by Camp Freddie; 29th Jun 2008 at 20:52.